The name of the film is “The 11th Hour”, produced by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners released in 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument woven throughout the film is the human impact on environment and saving ourselves from changes we are inflicting upon the earth. The film takes a look at the system that we currently have in place of consuming at such an alarming rate, is unsustainable. The film makes it very clear that humans are the only thing altering the environment and that WE will become extinct before the world will, which is why we need to change our ways. We have this idea that we are bigger than nature but the fact of the matter is that nature and the environment have been here far before and will be here long after humans, so we need to sustain our own life on this planet and start thinking of the consequences of our actions.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out many different sustainability problems including consumption, design and manufacturing, problems in our view of economy, our culture and lifestyle, use of natural resources, our impact on our global climate, dead zones due to chemical drain off, deforestation, soil degradation, the strain we but on our ecosystem as well as many more problems.
The film takes us through images of the ramifications of our behaviors such as extreme weather cases that have become much more prevalent in recent years because of climate change like severe droughts, massive floods, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes. They explain the sustainability problem that the media portrays these events as once in a lifetime freak occurrences instead of focusing on the fact that these weather problems are side effects of human consumption and greed. Because the media chooses not to focus on the real facts and treats climate problems and subsequent extreme weather as freak accidents and more for big impact news they are crippling our society from seeing their impact.
Another sustainability issue that was evident in the film was the difference between what economy and what nature ACTUALLY does for us. In fact if we put it into monetary value it would cost us 35 trillion dollars a year to do what nature does for us for free, in the grand scheme of things our global economies combined only provide 18 trillion dollars. You cannot put a price on nature, the plethora of positive activities it performs for us as humans is invaluable, and we need to stop destroying it.
4.What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Overall as a film “11th hour” was very persuasive. The information about how mushrooms seep up heavy metals, bacteria, and toxins that are released into the atmosphere was very interesting and compelling for me. Also, the information they gave about spider webs and how they are made versus how Kevlar is made, the fact that nature can make things just as strong as we can naturally with no adverse affects.
I also found the map of the world that showed the old growth forests to be extremely compelling. The statistic was that seventy percent of the countries in the world have NO old growth forest left, turning much of the land into desert, ruining the feasible soil and also decreasing the water being returned into our aquifers (the roots suck up the water and return it).
Lastly, one of the best aspects of the film is that they illustrated that you cannot put a price on what nature does for us, that statistic about how much runoff water a single tree can suck up during a flood saving millions of lives as well as millions of dollars and the fact that it would cost 35 trillion dollars for us to do what nature does for us every year is humbling and provokes you to stop trashing the environment. We need to go back the era where we learn from our environment and not from books, and regain connection with Mother Nature.
5.What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I thought that the beginning of the film could have been a bit more engaging. I was really excited to watch the film because of the class discussion we had about it and during the first 20 minutes or so I was bored watching the film. They could have added more information or explained things a little bit more at the beginning to really draw the viewer in more and get them excited to learn more about sustainability issues. By the end they did a better job of really engaging the viewer and connecting all of the events and interviews, if they just jazzed up the beginning the film could have been that much better.
6.What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I was really interested in the end about the different types of sustainable buildings that are popping up across the world. I was compelled to find out how much energy these building actually save and how much they cost to business owners to build. If these buildings are comparable in price over the long run for businesses it makes me wonder why the adoption of these sustainable buildings isn’t more readily seen. Also, it makes me think of what kind of incentives there are for building sustainably are there tax rebates or grants given to help fund a greener future for our economy?
7.What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that this film was aimed at the general public. It was not very technical in nature, and did not throw facts or figures out that would be hard for the average person to grasp and be moved by. I think that a lot of people are still blind to the impact that humans are having on the environment and this film really brought to light the impact of our existence on the environment around us. I think that this film is likely to at least make people aware of their actions and put more effort in to fight for what they what to protect in their towns and states. 8.What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
I don’t think that the film gave a lot of action points as an individual to help alleviate the problem. However they did highlight the fact that as a consumer your dollar acts as a vote depending on what you buy. When you buy something you are telling that company that you support their product and what they are doing, so you should really take into account what you are spending your money on. They also gave a lot of action points for our businesses, using green buildings and decreasing their impact on the environment.
9.What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Again, I think that the film was very well done but they would have added a little bit more about what you could do individually to make an impact that could have upped the educational value for me. Also I think that they could have gone into a little bit more detail about the specific tragedies and how they were really caused by us and because of the things that we are doing.
The name of the film is “The 11th Hour”, produced by Leila Conners Petersen and Nadia Conners released in 2007
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
The main argument woven throughout the film is the human impact on environment and saving ourselves from changes we are inflicting upon the earth. The film takes a look at the system that we currently have in place of consuming at such an alarming rate, is unsustainable. The film makes it very clear that humans are the only thing altering the environment and that WE will become extinct before the world will, which is why we need to change our ways. We have this idea that we are bigger than nature but the fact of the matter is that nature and the environment have been here far before and will be here long after humans, so we need to sustain our own life on this planet and start thinking of the consequences of our actions.
3. What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The film draws out many different sustainability problems including consumption, design and manufacturing, problems in our view of economy, our culture and lifestyle, use of natural resources, our impact on our global climate, dead zones due to chemical drain off, deforestation, soil degradation, the strain we but on our ecosystem as well as many more problems.
The film takes us through images of the ramifications of our behaviors such as extreme weather cases that have become much more prevalent in recent years because of climate change like severe droughts, massive floods, hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes. They explain the sustainability problem that the media portrays these events as once in a lifetime freak occurrences instead of focusing on the fact that these weather problems are side effects of human consumption and greed. Because the media chooses not to focus on the real facts and treats climate problems and subsequent extreme weather as freak accidents and more for big impact news they are crippling our society from seeing their impact.
Another sustainability issue that was evident in the film was the difference between what economy and what nature ACTUALLY does for us. In fact if we put it into monetary value it would cost us 35 trillion dollars a year to do what nature does for us for free, in the grand scheme of things our global economies combined only provide 18 trillion dollars. You cannot put a price on nature, the plethora of positive activities it performs for us as humans is invaluable, and we need to stop destroying it.
4. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
Overall as a film “11th hour” was very persuasive. The information about how mushrooms seep up heavy metals, bacteria, and toxins that are released into the atmosphere was very interesting and compelling for me. Also, the information they gave about spider webs and how they are made versus how Kevlar is made, the fact that nature can make things just as strong as we can naturally with no adverse affects.
I also found the map of the world that showed the old growth forests to be extremely compelling. The statistic was that seventy percent of the countries in the world have NO old growth forest left, turning much of the land into desert, ruining the feasible soil and also decreasing the water being returned into our aquifers (the roots suck up the water and return it).
Lastly, one of the best aspects of the film is that they illustrated that you cannot put a price on what nature does for us, that statistic about how much runoff water a single tree can suck up during a flood saving millions of lives as well as millions of dollars and the fact that it would cost 35 trillion dollars for us to do what nature does for us every year is humbling and provokes you to stop trashing the environment. We need to go back the era where we learn from our environment and not from books, and regain connection with Mother Nature.
5. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by?
I thought that the beginning of the film could have been a bit more engaging. I was really excited to watch the film because of the class discussion we had about it and during the first 20 minutes or so I was bored watching the film. They could have added more information or explained things a little bit more at the beginning to really draw the viewer in more and get them excited to learn more about sustainability issues. By the end they did a better job of really engaging the viewer and connecting all of the events and interviews, if they just jazzed up the beginning the film could have been that much better.
6. What additional information does this film compel you to seek out? Where do you want to dig deeper and what connections do you want to make with other issues, factors, problems, etc.?
I was really interested in the end about the different types of sustainable buildings that are popping up across the world. I was compelled to find out how much energy these building actually save and how much they cost to business owners to build. If these buildings are comparable in price over the long run for businesses it makes me wonder why the adoption of these sustainable buildings isn’t more readily seen. Also, it makes me think of what kind of incentives there are for building sustainably are there tax rebates or grants given to help fund a greener future for our economy?
7. What audiences does the film best address? What kind of imagination is fostered in viewers? Do you think the film is likely to change the way viewers think about and act on environmental problems?
I think that this film was aimed at the general public. It was not very technical in nature, and did not throw facts or figures out that would be hard for the average person to grasp and be moved by. I think that a lot of people are still blind to the impact that humans are having on the environment and this film really brought to light the impact of our existence on the environment around us. I think that this film is likely to at least make people aware of their actions and put more effort in to fight for what they what to protect in their towns and states.
8. What kinds of action or points of intervention are suggested by the film?
I don’t think that the film gave a lot of action points as an individual to help alleviate the problem. However they did highlight the fact that as a consumer your dollar acts as a vote depending on what you buy. When you buy something you are telling that company that you support their product and what they are doing, so you should really take into account what you are spending your money on. They also gave a lot of action points for our businesses, using green buildings and decreasing their impact on the environment.
9. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental education value?
Again, I think that the film was very well done but they would have added a little bit more about what you could do individually to make an impact that could have upped the educational value for me. Also I think that they could have gone into a little bit more detail about the specific tragedies and how they were really caused by us and because of the things that we are doing.